Talk:Chapter 197/@comment-172.56.37.208-20160502194905/@comment-27788729-20160503074545
@Citrus Tachibana: So the feelings of other people, limits they believe in, their values and their suffering is simply collateral which should be brushed aside to allow Kazuya to do whatever he and Gengo feels is necessary? Besides the dangerous arrogance in simply appointing two people as infallible masters of the world that kind of thinking, and the fact that the manga seems to be heading in actually portraying it as the 'right' thing to do is truly distressing to me. @Anon: No! Absolutely not. That is not how rape works. It is not a barometer where a girl needs 'experience' to be able to tell if she was raped. You don't call in rape 'experts' who have suffered rape sufficient times to determine if a girl was raped. Rape is, very simply, when their is any lack of explicit consent to the intercourse. That's it. Lack Of Consent. What Kazuya did was mind rape, done. We (thank goodness) don't have mind rape in the real world. Women don't enjoy being raped, they don't express love and devotion to their rapist, they don't worship their rapist. It is a sickening and degrading affair, completely harmful to the dignity and emotional state of the victim and truly worries me that the author seems now bent on manipulating his story in such a way as to cast mind rape as being a necessary and positive ability, the primary tool of our protagonist. Honestly Kazuya's Freezing is far worse than actual rape because Kazuya's makes the victim want it, makes the victim enjoy it and makes the victim wish to be the slave of her rapist. Just contemplating the moral and philosophical implications of Kazuya's Freezing honestly makes me nauseous. You can argue that he did what he had to do, which is fine, but that does not detract that what he did was still a monstrous violation and that the victims of said violation are permitted to feel so. When a soldier kills a civilian or another soldier in the pursuit of accomplishing a mission which they feel on the balance does more good than the evil of their action that does not mean that the action itself is suddenly not morally blameworthy or that reactions by people made to suffer as a result of it are unwarranted. A grieving family, because their family member was injured as collateral damage, are permitted to grieve and understandably be upset at the individuals who did injured their family member. Hardening our hearts to any atrocity committed 'in the name of the Greater Good' simply inclines us to atrocity since, if we stop seeing the taking of actions in the name of the Greater Good as carrying any moral blameworthiness, then they become easy remedies to any situation, as opposed to striving for a more difficult but moral solution. I would love to write more but I'm not going to turn this into an essay about the connection between morality, intention or the slippery slope argument when, to be honest, important as these concepts are too me, when I'm reading a make believe story like this I invest emotionally in the characters more than seek a consistent moral or intellectual framework and, right now, my emotional investments are all pretty banged up. But, sorry, that rape comment is just not accurate.